I am the Founder of Community of Liberty, a chapter based organization committed to pursuing the art of living in liberty, a member of the Publication Committee of the Claremont Review of Books, an Advisor to TheGold StandardNow.org, and a juror for the Bastiat Prize for Journalism. I have just published with my co-author Ralph Benko the booklet, "The 21st Century Gold Standard: For Prosperity, Security and Liberty," now available as a free download at AGoldenAge.com. I bring to my columns an extensive background in the investment management business, including my experience as an equity portfolio manager, strategist, president of my former firm’s retail sales and marketing subsidiary and member of the parent firm’s management committee. As such, I have been a student and observer of the political/economy and its affects on markets, businesses, and my own business for more than 30 years.

The Audacity of Power: President Obama Vs. The Catholic Church

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent.” Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

In one of the boldest, most audacious moves ever made by a President of the United States, President Barack Obama is on the brink of successfully rendering moot the very first clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (emphasis added). If he forces the Catholic Church to comply with the Health and Human Services ruling to provide its employees with insurance that covers activities the Church has long held sinful — abortion via the morning after pill, sterilization and contraceptives — then the precedent is clear: when religious beliefs conflict with government decrees, religion must yield.

The story line that President Obama miscalculated in picking this fight with the Catholic Church vastly underestimates the man’s political skill and ambition. His initial approval of the ruling requiring the Church pay for abortion drugs and sterilization was but the first step in a calculated strategy to further his goal of transforming America.

President Obama chose to pick this fight with the Catholic Church by choosing to release the regulations first, and then, as he explained in last Friday’s statement to the press, spend “the next year (before the new regulations take effect) to find an equitable solution that would protect religious liberty and insure that every woman has access to the care that she needs.” The alternative would have been to find the “equitable solution” before announcing the regulations. In other words, this entire political fire storm is a set-up by the Administration.

The original HHS ruling put the Catholic Church into the position of choosing one of these two options:

Option A: The Church complies with the law and violates its own teachings and principles of faith. Such a choice would strip the Church of its legitimacy and make it a de facto vassal of the state. In this case, the ability of the Church to challenge the government’s political power is vastly reduced, if not completely destroyed. Faith, charity and civil society are marginalized. Government wins.

Option B: The Church as a matter of conscience refuses to obey the law, and stops offering health insurance to its employees. In this case, the Church gets crushed by hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. As a consequence, its ability to fulfill its religious mission by funding hospitals, schools and charities is sharply reduced if not destroyed. As the Church is forced to withdraw from its active role in civil society, those who believe in government will rush to fill the void. Faith, charity and civil society are marginalized. Government wins.

The risk to President Obama was the Church would create “Option C” and engage in a broad political battle to force the full repeal of the ruling or, if that fails, the defeat of President Obama in the November election followed by the repeal of ObamaCare. Under Option C, government’s power is reduced. Faith, charity and civil society win.

President Obama’s political skill is demonstrated by his anticipation and preparation for just this outcome. First, he has used the issue to energize his political base by positioning his Administration as the defender of “women’s health” and attacking his opponents for taking him up on his implicit dare to make it an issue in the Presidential campaign.

Second, last Friday’s decision to “retreat,” as proclaimed by the weekend Wall Street Journal’s page 1 headline and find a way to “accommodate” religious freedom, was pure subterfuge. The notion of retreat or compromise is pure spin. The President’s operative statement reflected zero tolerance for those that would disagree with his policies.

He announced: (the imperial) “we’ve reached a decision on how to move forward. Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services -– no matter where they work. So that core principle remains (emphasis added). But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.

Got that? The insurance company will be required to offer the service, but will be forbidden from explicitly billing the Catholic organization for providing this benefit. Such a construct is a fraud. Of course the employer will have to pay for these benefits. And, even if they didn’t, the Church is still being forced to support what it believes are sinful acts. This “equitable solution” is simply an attempt to soften the blow of forcing the Catholic Church to accommodate the dictates of the now supreme federal government. It’s a face saving version of Option A.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

The Democratic Party loves one corporation above all. It is non profit. It has assets of more than one billion dollars. It receives over 400 million dollars from various governments. It isprobably the only one of Obamas favored growth industries. It receives over 400 million dollars in fees for services a year. Over 200 million dollars a year in charitable contributions and it will get billions of dollars for its functions under obama care. It is Planned Parenthood which currentl destroying over 300000 lives ayer through abortions.

In the final analysis is it about women’s rights or about money and who gets it? So congratulations Mr. Obama et al.

Enforcing Obamacare mandates taints the enire system. If thisi is what they love doing to babies, what will their jollies be like dispatching the old?

Audacity is the right word!! There will be a major disaster if this is enforced. I’m going to assume, as some have already done, that the bishops of this country wll not comply with paying for “free” contraception, etc. Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for life, has already said he and his staff will not comply with this mandate. If the Catholic Church is not given a conscience pass on this, all Catholic, schools, hospitals, colleges, etc. will close. Can you imagine the states trying to absorb the overload that will occur when this happens? Many are already going broke. Mr. Obama wants “his”vision of how this country should be and dammed be the Constitution.

While I appreciate the depth of your article Mr. Kadlec as well as your resolve against the President’s policies in general, in totality perhaps, I feel this is more of a business concern than a religious concern. These mandates pertain to the employees of the church and I feel the President’s policies protect the individual rights of American citizens as employees of a business rather than as practitioners of the faith. If these mandates required the church to make these devices and services available to the congregation I would completely agree that President Obama oversteps his authority, but they do not. It’s my belief that the opposite of your claim is true and that the church is overstepping their entitlements and forcing religious beliefs on the employees, who may not share the religious views of their employer. They should not be relieved of protection of their rights by the government simply because the business who employs them is The Church. It is the President’s duty to protect the right’s of his citizens, not the archaic beliefs of it’s religious institutions.

For me this is a very important issue, and the one thing in this article that bothered me is that you said it was obvious the charity/church would be paying to cover the cost of contraception etc., but I would like to see proof of this. Have there been other instances where this has happened before? What leads you to say that? Why wouldnt Option C work out? Like I said, I consider this a very important issue for the coming election, so I cant just take things like ‘obviously’ and ‘of course’ at face value. Please offer me some solid proof that this would happen, or quotes, or links, or anything that would show you are correct. Its greatly appreciated by this voter!

There is also an “Option D”. If Obama issues a “fine” on the Church for not enforcing the mandate — the Church should simply refuse to pay the fine. If the mandate is in opposition to the teachings of the Church, then so is the fine. What would Obama do? Throw a bunch of Catholic Bishops in the slammer? Aim a drone at the Vatican? I think not.

Try to be more illogical. You are not even entertaining. The church is no more forced to support values they don’t than anyone who does not support the church but is forced to rely on the uncomprimising church for anything. Imagine being a woman and being told you aren’t allowed to have proper, first world, non religious based healthcare because old men like the writer of this article don’t understand the modern age practice of choosing your family size.

Go build a time machine and head back 400+ years where your views belong.

Thank you for writing this Mr. Kadlec. I was unaware of the scheme that was going on behind President Obama’s desk. I feel as you do. I am not a Catholic either, nor do I believe in their views on contraception. But I pray that they would stand up for their beliefs and fight the government. You don’t take peoples religious beliefs away. That is just the same as stealing their identity.